Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Michael Meeks wrote: > There are a number of larger deployments that buy the gratis message, > then they fall over an increasing number of small annoyances that > cumulatively drive them away over the years. It's not a good model for > the project to promote, it results in unhappy users, a bad experience of > the brand, and starves product development. > Quite. There's been some good points being made from all sides of the argument; but this one here needs stressing: there is _negative_ net value to LibreOffice (and the ecosystem), to sell it as basically a zero-cost alternative to MS Office. Merely pushing up numbers of users is not a goal in and of itself, as we need people being happy & served well with our software. I know people here are aware of it (some of you have even tried to rescue projects which started like that - at great personal cost sometimes), but our product marketing to this date apparently still does not convey the message clearly enough. The discussion we're having is basically about how to change that. TDF, in my humble opinion, was not founded to 'sell a zero-cost office suite' - the collective motivation & mission statement would be IMO much better served by marketing an experience - 'LibreOffice the community'. That will likely involve distributing the bits of the compiled program, but only as a means to an end, not as the sole purpose. As such, I find the label 'LibreOffice Community Edition' quite suitable. Cheers, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Hi Toki, On 12/07/2020 22:41, toki wrote: > They might be mistaken, but in as much as Collabora has > stated that they have had zero new customers since 2018 To correct this mis-apprehension; I spoke about new Desktop product customers, and Thorsten reported a similar experience at CIB. > it looks a lot like Collabora, and the rest of the > LibreOffice Ecosystem are looking at TDF/LibreOffice to > also do their marketing for them. Clearly both Volunteers and Ecosystem are important parts of the LibreOffice community. If we frame the discussion as them vs. us, we exacerbate conflict. You will be surprised to know that C'bra and CIB have funded TDF/LibreOffice Marketing / outreach in the past too. Mike can perhaps report on the results there. It heavily foundered on the hard-gratis messaging. Everyone wants something for free, then they want to complain about it =) IMHO TDF needs to build space for an ecosystem that can afford to invest in improving LibreOffice. Or alternatively - it needs to bin its ecosystem and become the one-company that controls the brand and does everything: Mozilla style (though I'm far from a fan of this model, I think it's broadly doomed to failure as I wrote in my ecosystem paper, and our current efforts at TDF to spend money on development are are not encouraging). > 2) https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76842 exemplifies > the potential client that the support vendor was unable to convert. > 8,500 seats would be either £51,000 per month, or per year, assuming the > publicly stated seat prices are accurate. This is an example of a spectacularly entitled and unpleasant government deployment expecting free LTS, rapid response to their problems, and also not to pay anyone for it. > (One place gave the base price > as being per year. A different place gave the base price as being per > month.) Without having the facts on hand, I'd guess that the issue was > money --- specifically, that the bug-reporter was blind-sided by both > the amounts involved, and was provided with none of the virtues of how & > why paying for support would enable his organisation to be more > effective. (Did the vendor rep point out that their support included > software that enables rolling out new releases on a more timely basis, > including extensions, templates, corporate palettes, and the like?) Sure; Tim worked for me back then - he was a professional sales person, and I'm sure he provided a compelling view of the value-add (vs. what you can get for free without support). Of course - being aggressive in up-stream bug reports to try to get free support is something that many try. It would be nice if they did not. It seems to me that having deployed something for free, saved a significant amount of money on Microsoft Office licenses - say half a million per year; it is unhelpful to complain. Problem is - he was talking to a sysadmin who wants an immediate fix: by which time we're -far- too late in the cycle; much better to have worked this out in advance. There are a number of larger deployments that buy the gratis message, then they fall over an increasing number of small annoyances that cumulatively drive them away over the years. It's not a good model for the project to promote, it results in unhappy users, a bad experience of the brand, and starves product development. Another thing that strikes me is - that I travel on RyanAir, and the flight is crammed but the service is not particularly dire, and yet the number of aggressive complaints is high. I fly on a higher cost airline and I can't tell the difference in service, but there is often much less grumbling when you pay more. Curious. Either way - moving marketing away from gratis towards libre sounds like a good move to me. ATB, Michael. -- michael.me...@collabora.com <><, GM Collabora Productivity Hangout: mejme...@gmail.com, Skype: mmeeks (M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
On 2020/07/09 16:56, Simon Phipps wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 5:47 PM Andreas Mantke wrote: > >> >> please read through the whole discussion and you may get an impression >> that there are some intent to use TDF for such a promotion. >> > > However, those with that impression are entirely mistaken and it is wrong > to imply anyone is attempting the subversion you imply -- no-one has > proposed it. Those expressing the impression you describe have either > misunderstood or decided to misunderstand. They might be mistaken, but in as much as Collabora has stated that they have had zero new customers since 2018, it looks a lot like Collabora, and the rest of the LibreOffice Ecosystem are looking at TDF/LibreOffice to also do their marketing for them. > because it is a mistake to imply that TDF offers support, or that TDF/LibreOffice offers Tier 0 support. As far as I can tell, that won't be changing. > as these leave corporate community members with more work to do explaining > their value, not less. TDF needs to leave room for the companies who inves in > the code to sustain themselves, There is absolutely nothing preventing the LibreOffice ecosystem vendors from marketing Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 support. (FWIW, Collabora currently does market Tier 3 support.) However, as Collabora also pointed out in that email, there is no profit in SOHO support (^1). Unfortunately for the LibreOffice Ecosystem, the majority of organisations in the world are SOHO --- between 1 and 20 people work in them. My rough estimate is that 90% of the organisations, globally, have under 20 employees. (There are 250 countries on the planet. It takes roughly an hour per country, to get the appropriate data. So if somebody else wants to get that data for each country, and sort it out, for revenue, number of employees, and type of organisation, go for it. If TDF/LibreOffice is expected to do the marketing for and on behalf of the LibreOffice Ecosystem, then LibO Marketing absolutely has to have that data, to construct country specific/industry specific marketing plans. ) The issue that everybody is dancing around, is that the LibreOffice Ecosystem support vendors focus on large (More than 250 employees) organisations (^2), but the majority of LibO users are either individuals, or SOHO users. Going back to Italo's presentation, _Work From Home_ is going to be far more common, than it was prior to January 2020. Between businesses filing bankruptcy, and organisations deciding that it makes better financial sense to give every employee US$10,000 to set up their own home office, and eliminate leased office space, the commercial real estate market in the United States is looking at a tough future. (Of the businesses in the United States on 1 January 2020, projections are that roughly 25% of them will have filed bankruptcy by 1 January 2021, and almost as many will have permanently closed their doors by that date.) Your current large business might be willing and able to sign a support contract for Tier 1 or Tier 2. However, how much profit will the support vendor have, if, instead of one site per organisation, there are 500 sites per organisation? With WFH, can support vendors even offer on-site support? Those are issues that the support vendors need to address. # 1) The profit in SOHO support comes from systems integration --- both hardware and software. Back when white box makers were a dime a dozen, such contracts were readily available, albeit not advertised. 2) https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76842 exemplifies the potential client that the support vendor was unable to convert. 8,500 seats would be either £51,000 per month, or per year, assuming the publicly stated seat prices are accurate. (One place gave the base price as being per year. A different place gave the base price as being per month.) Without having the facts on hand, I'd guess that the issue was money --- specifically, that the bug-reporter was blind-sided by both the amounts involved, and was provided with none of the virtues of how & why paying for support would enable his organisation to be more effective. (Did the vendor rep point out that their support included software that enables rolling out new releases on a more timely basis, including extensions, templates, corporate palettes, and the like?) jonathon -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Hi all. Only for the record: I'm agreeing withDaniel Armando Rodriguez & Florian about postponing the tag implementation. Or if we want to make use of the 7.0 release, please postpone it with at least a month. For example replacing the 7.0.1 release with 7.0. Extended RC2 and RC3 or something that. Or add RC4. Note: if this an viable option of course, based on release schedules of Linux distro's and other events. There is currently by far to much pressure for my taste; I really against rushing things (again). The PR for 7.1 is less, so I would prefer 7.0. And moving it another 6 months is quite a long time. Some delay would show the discussion to be taken seriously and the change being well considered and would it make possible to take advantage of 7.0. The time can also be used for a strong communication strategy. About the next RC. On the one hand I tend to opt for community edition label for RC2 (checking for bugs etc). OTOH. I'm still not totally convinced about everything has been said about the "Community Edition". Especially the Edition part. I'm still arguing with myself about this (gets a follow up asap). Flip flopping from Personal Edition to Community Edition and maybe reverting it again or changing it to something else ... does show work in progress; or a divided community (note the contradictio in termis. (comm)unity & divided ). And the public is watching.. All the publicity has one advantage: lots of interesting opinions in the comments. Regards, Telesto
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Hi Andreas, @! On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 11:18 AM kainz.a wrote: > .. > As I wrote, community edition is fine for me. Fun Project, Fantastic > People will be something like a backup which describes the LibreOffice > community and can be from my point of view a bit more motivated to donate > or use an enterprise release (for companies). > Thanks for sharing this amazing concept in some past email! Let me suggest my cents (instead 'LibreOffice Community Edition') based on it: 'LibreOffice for People'. Best! Gustavo. On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:46 PM kainz.a wrote: > Thank Thorston > > I think the discussion was well and we have now something we can work with. > > LibreOffice Community Edition > > If we wait for another 6 months nothing will happen. Only the spirit will > go away and the community need a clear message how future will be. > > Design proposals can be done until next week meeting on 17.07. for > LibreOffice and also for the webpage if we have a go for LibreOffice > Community Edition. So that in the meeting you can vote for something to > implement. > > So please give feedback in the design irc what are the guidelines. > > Cheers > Andreas_k > > Michael Meeks schrieb am Fr., 10. Juli > 2020, 16:27: > >> >> >> On 10/07/2020 11:12, Florian Effenberger wrote: >> > With all the feedback received, I strongly propose to leave 7.0 without >> > tagging and finalize the plan for a later release. >> >> I share Thorsten's view. While I've generally been a big >> proponent of >> getting everything nailed down in one try, I would strongly prefer to >> get a weaker solution "Community Edition" out which seems to be >> collecting a weight of support against Personal. That support arriving >> even before we had a clear write-up of the issues we want to solve. >> Perhaps we can iterate it based on feedback, we at least generate some >> hard data on its effectiveness. >> >> I would also really like to avoid stalling effective improvements >> to >> our website to encourage enterprises to support the project. The >> improvements there to date have been really small and incremental, and >> as we now know ineffective. >> >> > I know there are concerns this would delay things >> > infinitely and nothing will happen, >> >> Ultimately, we're getting press, and interest, and relevance, and >> feedback from the community: integrating that into something better >> while people are interested sounds good to me. I'm sure marketing can >> turn that into a success story. >> >> It is now widely known that the status-quo is working >> extraordinarily >> poorly. Rather than accepting and extending that for six months - I'd >> prefer to use the momentum to encourage at least some improvement. >> >> > The name “Personal” excludes even small educational organizations, which >> > are a part as per slide 29. It also excludes small NGOs - thinking of >> > the local street worker office with two volunteers, or the youth care >> ... >> > but still, I think “Personal” sets the frame too strict. >> ...> Also, if we go to universities for the budgeted campus ambassador >> > program, with the above wording, even using in smaller working groups >> ... >> > I know the plan is to draw a line somewhere, but the above, at least for >> > a non-native speaker, feels quite narrow. >> >> I really don't think we want to discourage contributing to >> LibreOffice. >> That's why it's important we get our marketing right. >> >> However carving out Education, Universities, NGOs, youth care - as >> markets which should not support the project financially is really >> unhelpful. >> >> It is hard to predict the future, and the best predictions are >> sold to >> people rather than being free but checkout: >> >> https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/collaboration-software-market >> >> This has a pretty pie-chart in it "Canada Collaboration Software >> Market >> share by Application 2026": >> >> >> https://www.gminsights.com/assets/img/collaboration-software-market-by-application.png >> >> Education is approaching 25% of that. >> >> In recent time, Education has been a bright point for actually >> contributing to the ecosystem. >> >> As one example - we can now build and run on iOS and tablets >> because of >> a single education area in Switzerland - as well as a big chunk of >> Adfinis and Collabora's investment. Perhaps a good thing we didn't tell >> them that they don't have to contribute or get support. >> >> Education sales has helped to fuel a similarly significant chunk >> of >> C'bras development team via sales in lockdown. >> >> It is quite unclear to me why some segments that pay for a premis, >> heating, lighting, hardware, sysadmin time, network bandwidth, >> deployment, a Windows OS ;-) and more should not be encouraged to >> contribute to LibreOffice's growth. >> >> For our friends, we can sooth their conscience and tell
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Many people from the hispanic Community is in favor of Community tag, myself included. This term identifies pretty well a group of people who are passionate, in this case about a free and open tool. However, the adoption of such an appellation must be communicated in an appropriate manner and with sufficient notice so that everyone is prepared. Having said that, I agree with Florian's statement about postponing the tag implementation until the next major version. With the definition of a timetable with the key dates involved and an strong communication strategy. El 2020-07-10 07:12, Florian Effenberger escribió: Hello, first and foremost, thanks a lot to everyone for taking on the challenging task to work on a marketing plan. I am sure this was not easy, so thanks to all of you for your work on this - and thanks to the board for the transparent communication in public! With all the feedback received, I strongly propose to leave 7.0 without tagging and finalize the plan for a later release. Let’s use this time to come to a conclusion here in public, hear the community members and find something that works for everyone. First, I doubt we will achieve something positive if we rush things through. Second, adding one tag in 7.0 and then change it to another tag in 7.1 is likely to cause confusion. Third, the demand is to have something durable (the plan covers 2020-2025), something to rely on that doesn't change all of the time. Timeline: To have a concrete timeline, I would have proposed 7.0.3 for a final decision, not only because enterprises likely rather deploy .0.3 over .0.0, but also because it will be published around our annual LibreOffice Conference in October, and as such provides a good messaging opportunity. However, I understand UI changes in minor versions are not a good idea, so 7.1 might be a better choice. I know there are concerns this would delay things infinitely and nothing will happen, but I sincerely do hope we have some options between a rock and a hard place. :-) That means driving forward a concrete timeline with deadlines, to not let this topic slip out of sight. Personal vs. Community: If I absolutely had to decide between “Personal Edition” and “Community Edition”, I would clearly favor the latter. The name “Personal” excludes even small educational organizations, which are a part as per slide 29. It also excludes small NGOs - thinking of the local street worker office with two volunteers, or the youth care facility that hosts lots of FLOSS events, or the little kindergarten in town. Also, thinking of all the other fellow FLOSS organizations or other smaller foundations who likely prepare their annual filings (which are also “strategic documents”) with LibreOffice - would we want to discourage them from using TDF-provided LibreOffice for their association tasks? Personal to me means for the individual use only. A personal website, in comparison to the website of the NGO I work for. A personal bank account, in comparison to an association one's. Now I acknowledge we don't talk about a legal license condition for LibreOffice, but about the framing and messaging - but still, I think “Personal” sets the frame too strict. Also, if we go to universities for the budgeted campus ambassador program, with the above wording, even using in smaller working groups (“I show you how to write your final thesis with LibreOffice”) could sound to be discouraged. I know the plan is to draw a line somewhere, but the above, at least for a non-native speaker, feels quite narrow. Then, I also received feedback that “Community” can be read as an open core model or there’s no understanding in the general public what an open source community is, so it might be worth rethinking this as well - which is why 7.0, to be published in a month from now, is on too short notice for introducing a tag. Relevance of Statutes and Regulations: In course of the discussion, also the statutes were mentioned several times. Although I know their history and their ideas quite well, I don’t think the discussion is so much about regulations already at this point - much more important is the mutual understanding of what we want. From that point on, let’s see what we can do. We all grow and learn, regulations change, and more than once TDF has shown it’s will and ability to fight for good things. I want to contribute that we can have this discussion in the same positive and creating spirit. Explanatory Texts: Next to the tagging, also the various texts need to be agreed on and translated, like in the start center, the about dialog and the start center sidebar - and the same thoughts as for the actual tagging apply, how strict should the frame be set. Legally, the license permits that organizations can use LibreOffice without contributing back - in the end, it’s free software. They do what the license allows them. We can't forbid it. What we want to do is to very strongly encourage them,
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Thank Thorston I think the discussion was well and we have now something we can work with. LibreOffice Community Edition If we wait for another 6 months nothing will happen. Only the spirit will go away and the community need a clear message how future will be. Design proposals can be done until next week meeting on 17.07. for LibreOffice and also for the webpage if we have a go for LibreOffice Community Edition. So that in the meeting you can vote for something to implement. So please give feedback in the design irc what are the guidelines. Cheers Andreas_k Michael Meeks schrieb am Fr., 10. Juli 2020, 16:27: > > > On 10/07/2020 11:12, Florian Effenberger wrote: > > With all the feedback received, I strongly propose to leave 7.0 without > > tagging and finalize the plan for a later release. > > I share Thorsten's view. While I've generally been a big proponent > of > getting everything nailed down in one try, I would strongly prefer to > get a weaker solution "Community Edition" out which seems to be > collecting a weight of support against Personal. That support arriving > even before we had a clear write-up of the issues we want to solve. > Perhaps we can iterate it based on feedback, we at least generate some > hard data on its effectiveness. > > I would also really like to avoid stalling effective improvements > to > our website to encourage enterprises to support the project. The > improvements there to date have been really small and incremental, and > as we now know ineffective. > > > I know there are concerns this would delay things > > infinitely and nothing will happen, > > Ultimately, we're getting press, and interest, and relevance, and > feedback from the community: integrating that into something better > while people are interested sounds good to me. I'm sure marketing can > turn that into a success story. > > It is now widely known that the status-quo is working > extraordinarily > poorly. Rather than accepting and extending that for six months - I'd > prefer to use the momentum to encourage at least some improvement. > > > The name “Personal” excludes even small educational organizations, which > > are a part as per slide 29. It also excludes small NGOs - thinking of > > the local street worker office with two volunteers, or the youth care > ... > > but still, I think “Personal” sets the frame too strict. > ...> Also, if we go to universities for the budgeted campus ambassador > > program, with the above wording, even using in smaller working groups > ... > > I know the plan is to draw a line somewhere, but the above, at least for > > a non-native speaker, feels quite narrow. > > I really don't think we want to discourage contributing to > LibreOffice. > That's why it's important we get our marketing right. > > However carving out Education, Universities, NGOs, youth care - as > markets which should not support the project financially is really > unhelpful. > > It is hard to predict the future, and the best predictions are > sold to > people rather than being free but checkout: > > https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/collaboration-software-market > > This has a pretty pie-chart in it "Canada Collaboration Software > Market > share by Application 2026": > > > https://www.gminsights.com/assets/img/collaboration-software-market-by-application.png > > Education is approaching 25% of that. > > In recent time, Education has been a bright point for actually > contributing to the ecosystem. > > As one example - we can now build and run on iOS and tablets > because of > a single education area in Switzerland - as well as a big chunk of > Adfinis and Collabora's investment. Perhaps a good thing we didn't tell > them that they don't have to contribute or get support. > > Education sales has helped to fuel a similarly significant chunk of > C'bras development team via sales in lockdown. > > It is quite unclear to me why some segments that pay for a premis, > heating, lighting, hardware, sysadmin time, network bandwidth, > deployment, a Windows OS ;-) and more should not be encouraged to > contribute to LibreOffice's growth. > > For our friends, we can sooth their conscience and tell them that > using > the Personal or Community version is just fine for them, and that we > contribute for them - or whatever =) that's easy to do personally > surely? That means we can help our friends and neighbours while not > killing the market for whole segments. > > > What we want to do is to very strongly encourage them, convince them, > > make things clear to them, because the project can only survive if there > > is sufficient funding, and the ecosystem is one of several key > > parameters for the success of TDF - we wouldn't be where we are without > > all of you, all of the community. > > Thanks for those words. > > > I find it much easier to celebrate things with a positive
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
On 10/07/2020 11:12, Florian Effenberger wrote: > With all the feedback received, I strongly propose to leave 7.0 without > tagging and finalize the plan for a later release. I share Thorsten's view. While I've generally been a big proponent of getting everything nailed down in one try, I would strongly prefer to get a weaker solution "Community Edition" out which seems to be collecting a weight of support against Personal. That support arriving even before we had a clear write-up of the issues we want to solve. Perhaps we can iterate it based on feedback, we at least generate some hard data on its effectiveness. I would also really like to avoid stalling effective improvements to our website to encourage enterprises to support the project. The improvements there to date have been really small and incremental, and as we now know ineffective. > I know there are concerns this would delay things > infinitely and nothing will happen, Ultimately, we're getting press, and interest, and relevance, and feedback from the community: integrating that into something better while people are interested sounds good to me. I'm sure marketing can turn that into a success story. It is now widely known that the status-quo is working extraordinarily poorly. Rather than accepting and extending that for six months - I'd prefer to use the momentum to encourage at least some improvement. > The name “Personal” excludes even small educational organizations, which > are a part as per slide 29. It also excludes small NGOs - thinking of > the local street worker office with two volunteers, or the youth care ... > but still, I think “Personal” sets the frame too strict. ...> Also, if we go to universities for the budgeted campus ambassador > program, with the above wording, even using in smaller working groups ... > I know the plan is to draw a line somewhere, but the above, at least for > a non-native speaker, feels quite narrow. I really don't think we want to discourage contributing to LibreOffice. That's why it's important we get our marketing right. However carving out Education, Universities, NGOs, youth care - as markets which should not support the project financially is really unhelpful. It is hard to predict the future, and the best predictions are sold to people rather than being free but checkout: https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/collaboration-software-market This has a pretty pie-chart in it "Canada Collaboration Software Market share by Application 2026": https://www.gminsights.com/assets/img/collaboration-software-market-by-application.png Education is approaching 25% of that. In recent time, Education has been a bright point for actually contributing to the ecosystem. As one example - we can now build and run on iOS and tablets because of a single education area in Switzerland - as well as a big chunk of Adfinis and Collabora's investment. Perhaps a good thing we didn't tell them that they don't have to contribute or get support. Education sales has helped to fuel a similarly significant chunk of C'bras development team via sales in lockdown. It is quite unclear to me why some segments that pay for a premis, heating, lighting, hardware, sysadmin time, network bandwidth, deployment, a Windows OS ;-) and more should not be encouraged to contribute to LibreOffice's growth. For our friends, we can sooth their conscience and tell them that using the Personal or Community version is just fine for them, and that we contribute for them - or whatever =) that's easy to do personally surely? That means we can help our friends and neighbours while not killing the market for whole segments. > What we want to do is to very strongly encourage them, convince them, > make things clear to them, because the project can only survive if there > is sufficient funding, and the ecosystem is one of several key > parameters for the success of TDF - we wouldn't be where we are without > all of you, all of the community. Thanks for those words. > I find it much easier to celebrate things with a positive message than Problem is; this celebration party is great - but currently has nearly zero attendees =) The hosts are tapping their watches and wondering if they even bothered to send an invitation out =) I would really like to see some messaging that we can show is effective. > TDF is no different in this regard! We ourselves, we use lots of free > software as an organization - be it for web, database, file services, > mail, chat, conferencing and other servers. We have the skills in-house > and we often rely on pre-compiled binaries from free software projects. > We do contribute back e.g. by supporting upstream development, doing > advocacy and working together on a common goal. I think this is generally acceptable in the society of FLOSS projects because we
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Hi Flo, *, Florian Effenberger wrote: > first and foremost, thanks a lot to everyone for taking on the challenging > task to work on a marketing plan. I am sure this was not easy, so thanks to > all of you for your work on this - and thanks to the board for the > transparent communication in public! > Seconded - the feedback here & elsewhere has been overwhelmingly positive & constructive! > With all the feedback received, I strongly propose to leave 7.0 without > tagging and finalize the plan for a later release. > I think that would be a mistake. - we see consensus forming now, around the community tag - there's a unique opportunity now, with the 10 year / 7.0 marketing push & attention we're getting - there's _additional_ attention now from the press, due to the ongoing, public discussion (quite a nice & balanced article: https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/825598/21fb7c2a3f9358e7/) - instead being seen from the outside as not being able to resolve conflicts amicably & in finite time would further the impression of a project mired in internal fights I propose instead to use the available time, focus the minds, and settle on something that seems to have broad-enough support (LibreOffice Community Edition). I've seen great artwork & mockups already from the design team, and it would be a shame to let the current focus, energy & thrust fizzle out. As it inevitably will, because the next release is 6 months out, and for a project also relying on volunteers, real life will certainly take over again. One more thing: > Relevance of Statutes and Regulations: > > In course of the discussion, also the statutes were mentioned several times. > Although I know their history and their ideas quite well, I don’t think the > discussion is so much about regulations already at this point - much more > important is the mutual understanding of what we want. > Can you (perhaps in a separate mail) clearly state that with the current marketing plan, those allegations are baseless? Or if not, where perhaps some care need to be taken? > Explanatory Texts: > > Next to the tagging, also the various texts need to be agreed on and > translated, like in the start center, the about dialog and the start center > sidebar - and the same thoughts as for the actual tagging apply, how strict > should the frame be set. > Yep - but for those, I've also seen good suggestions (and I'm more willing to e.g. only have an inobtrusive banner instead of a wall of text for the start center, if that makes things more palatable). > I find it much easier to celebrate things with a positive message than with > a negative. > I agree. Two thoughts here: - I'm much happier with a text many here agree with, than no message - Whatever we do, we'll learn how effective it is, and we can iterate the approach for 7.1 But I very, very strongly feel the need to act for 7.0 - with a change that is broadly acceptable, but with a _change_. Because if every change for the LibreOffice product takes a year to iterate, any learning & adapting we can pull up will be too slow for the internet age. Cheers, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Florian, I fully support what you wrote. That's it. Ciao Paolo On 10/07/2020 12:12, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hello, > > first and foremost, thanks a lot to everyone for taking on the > challenging task to work on a marketing plan. I am sure this was not > easy, so thanks to all of you for your work on this - and thanks to > the board for the transparent communication in public! > > With all the feedback received, I strongly propose to leave 7.0 > without tagging and finalize the plan for a later release. > > Let’s use this time to come to a conclusion here in public, hear the > community members and find something that works for everyone. First, I > doubt we will achieve something positive if we rush things through. > Second, adding one tag in 7.0 and then change it to another tag in 7.1 > is likely to cause confusion. Third, the demand is to have something > durable (the plan covers 2020-2025), something to rely on that doesn't > change all of the time. > > > Timeline: > > To have a concrete timeline, I would have proposed 7.0.3 for a final > decision, not only because enterprises likely rather deploy .0.3 over > .0.0, but also because it will be published around our annual > LibreOffice Conference in October, and as such provides a good > messaging opportunity. However, I understand UI changes in minor > versions are not a good idea, so 7.1 might be a better choice. > > I know there are concerns this would delay things infinitely and > nothing will happen, but I sincerely do hope we have some options > between a rock and a hard place. :-) That means driving forward a > concrete timeline with deadlines, to not let this topic slip out of > sight. > > > Personal vs. Community: > > If I absolutely had to decide between “Personal Edition” and > “Community Edition”, I would clearly favor the latter. > > The name “Personal” excludes even small educational organizations, > which are a part as per slide 29. It also excludes small NGOs - > thinking of the local street worker office with two volunteers, or the > youth care facility that hosts lots of FLOSS events, or the little > kindergarten in town. Also, thinking of all the other fellow FLOSS > organizations or other smaller foundations who likely prepare their > annual filings (which are also “strategic documents”) with LibreOffice > - would we want to discourage them from using TDF-provided LibreOffice > for their association tasks? > > Personal to me means for the individual use only. A personal website, > in comparison to the website of the NGO I work for. A personal bank > account, in comparison to an association one's. Now I acknowledge we > don't talk about a legal license condition for LibreOffice, but about > the framing and messaging - but still, I think “Personal” sets the > frame too strict. > > Also, if we go to universities for the budgeted campus ambassador > program, with the above wording, even using in smaller working groups > (“I show you how to write your final thesis with LibreOffice”) could > sound to be discouraged. > > I know the plan is to draw a line somewhere, but the above, at least > for a non-native speaker, feels quite narrow. > > Then, I also received feedback that “Community” can be read as an open > core model or there’s no understanding in the general public what an > open source community is, so it might be worth rethinking this as well > - which is why 7.0, to be published in a month from now, is on too > short notice for introducing a tag. > > > Relevance of Statutes and Regulations: > > In course of the discussion, also the statutes were mentioned several > times. Although I know their history and their ideas quite well, I > don’t think the discussion is so much about regulations already at > this point - much more important is the mutual understanding of what > we want. From that point on, let’s see what we can do. We all grow and > learn, regulations change, and more than once TDF has shown it’s will > and ability to fight for good things. I want to contribute that we can > have this discussion in the same positive and creating spirit. > > > Explanatory Texts: > > Next to the tagging, also the various texts need to be agreed on and > translated, like in the start center, the about dialog and the start > center sidebar - and the same thoughts as for the actual tagging > apply, how strict should the frame be set. > > Legally, the license permits that organizations can use LibreOffice > without contributing back - in the end, it’s free software. They do > what the license allows them. We can't forbid it. > > What we want to do is to very strongly encourage them, convince them, > make things clear to them, because the project can only survive if > there is sufficient funding, and the ecosystem is one of several key > parameters for the success of TDF - we wouldn't be where we are > without all of you, all of the community. > > I find it much easier to celebrate things with a positive message than > with a
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Hello, first and foremost, thanks a lot to everyone for taking on the challenging task to work on a marketing plan. I am sure this was not easy, so thanks to all of you for your work on this - and thanks to the board for the transparent communication in public! With all the feedback received, I strongly propose to leave 7.0 without tagging and finalize the plan for a later release. Let’s use this time to come to a conclusion here in public, hear the community members and find something that works for everyone. First, I doubt we will achieve something positive if we rush things through. Second, adding one tag in 7.0 and then change it to another tag in 7.1 is likely to cause confusion. Third, the demand is to have something durable (the plan covers 2020-2025), something to rely on that doesn't change all of the time. Timeline: To have a concrete timeline, I would have proposed 7.0.3 for a final decision, not only because enterprises likely rather deploy .0.3 over .0.0, but also because it will be published around our annual LibreOffice Conference in October, and as such provides a good messaging opportunity. However, I understand UI changes in minor versions are not a good idea, so 7.1 might be a better choice. I know there are concerns this would delay things infinitely and nothing will happen, but I sincerely do hope we have some options between a rock and a hard place. :-) That means driving forward a concrete timeline with deadlines, to not let this topic slip out of sight. Personal vs. Community: If I absolutely had to decide between “Personal Edition” and “Community Edition”, I would clearly favor the latter. The name “Personal” excludes even small educational organizations, which are a part as per slide 29. It also excludes small NGOs - thinking of the local street worker office with two volunteers, or the youth care facility that hosts lots of FLOSS events, or the little kindergarten in town. Also, thinking of all the other fellow FLOSS organizations or other smaller foundations who likely prepare their annual filings (which are also “strategic documents”) with LibreOffice - would we want to discourage them from using TDF-provided LibreOffice for their association tasks? Personal to me means for the individual use only. A personal website, in comparison to the website of the NGO I work for. A personal bank account, in comparison to an association one's. Now I acknowledge we don't talk about a legal license condition for LibreOffice, but about the framing and messaging - but still, I think “Personal” sets the frame too strict. Also, if we go to universities for the budgeted campus ambassador program, with the above wording, even using in smaller working groups (“I show you how to write your final thesis with LibreOffice”) could sound to be discouraged. I know the plan is to draw a line somewhere, but the above, at least for a non-native speaker, feels quite narrow. Then, I also received feedback that “Community” can be read as an open core model or there’s no understanding in the general public what an open source community is, so it might be worth rethinking this as well - which is why 7.0, to be published in a month from now, is on too short notice for introducing a tag. Relevance of Statutes and Regulations: In course of the discussion, also the statutes were mentioned several times. Although I know their history and their ideas quite well, I don’t think the discussion is so much about regulations already at this point - much more important is the mutual understanding of what we want. From that point on, let’s see what we can do. We all grow and learn, regulations change, and more than once TDF has shown it’s will and ability to fight for good things. I want to contribute that we can have this discussion in the same positive and creating spirit. Explanatory Texts: Next to the tagging, also the various texts need to be agreed on and translated, like in the start center, the about dialog and the start center sidebar - and the same thoughts as for the actual tagging apply, how strict should the frame be set. Legally, the license permits that organizations can use LibreOffice without contributing back - in the end, it’s free software. They do what the license allows them. We can't forbid it. What we want to do is to very strongly encourage them, convince them, make things clear to them, because the project can only survive if there is sufficient funding, and the ecosystem is one of several key parameters for the success of TDF - we wouldn't be where we are without all of you, all of the community. I find it much easier to celebrate things with a positive message than with a negative. As such, I seriously doubt we will convince people and bring across a good message if we communicate with too strong words. Positive wording and directions are always better than negative. And I think it's also much
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Hi Paolo, I acknowledge the answers. Thanks. Regards, Aravind Palla Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, July 9, 2020 10:36 PM, Paolo Vecchi wrote: > Hi Aravind, > > please read the answers you received before firing off new ones: > > https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/msg04604.html > https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/msg04636.html > https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/msg04638.html > > Ciao > > Paolo > > On 09/07/2020 18:49, Aravind Palla wrote: > > > There is no need to downplay the LibreOffice (Community Edition) in order > > to lure the proposed enterprise edition. The sudden and unexpected > > additions in the development branch to the extent that 'you are using a > > Personal Edition which is intended for individual use' has, undoubtedly > > created commotion among the community. > > LibreOffice was and is regarded as a Freedom Software and many volunteers > > and including the eco-system companies (I believe) have contributed the > > vast-majority of the code without any commercial/enterprise edition. The > > office suite has achieved great heights all these years. > > It is purely a moral obligation on the individuals / non-individuals to > > give back to the community. > > Even if it is only to lure the governments/commercial entities to sell the > > proposed LibreOffice Enterprise edition, I reiterate that there is no need > > to downplay the standard edition. > > What will be 'special' and what will be the exclusive 'support', etc., in > > the proposed enterprise edition? Can the board clarify? > > > > - Aravind Palla > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Thursday, July 9, 2020 10:04 PM, Michael Stahl m...@libreoffice.org > > wrote: > > > > > On 09.07.20 18:19, Andreas Mantke wrote: > > > > > > > and there are three reasons, why TDF is "Gemeinnützig": > > > > > > > > - der Volks- und Berufsbildung, > > > > > > > > - der Wissenschaft und Forschung, insbesondere auf dem Gebiet der > > > > Informatik, > > > > > > > > - des bürgerschaftlichen Engagements zugunsten gemeinnütziger Zwecke. > > > > > > > > > > > > (non binding English translation: > > > > > > > > - Public and professional education > > > > - Science and research, particularly in the field of computer science > > > > - Civic engagement for non-profit purposes) > > > > > > > > There is nothing in this lines about the promotion of an ecosystem of > > > > service providers (etc.). > > > > i don't believe anybody is claiming that promotion of an ecosystem of > > > > service providers should be a goal of TDF - what i understand is being > > > > claimed is that it can be a good means, a tool to eventually help > > > > reach the actual defined goals of TDF to a fuller extent, and the > > > > proposed marketing plan is a way to increase the ... leverage(?) ... of > > > > the means/tool. > > > > > > To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org > > > Problems? > > > https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > > > Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > > > List archive: > > > https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ > > > Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy > > -- > > Paolo Vecchi - Deputy Member of the Board of Directors > The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE > Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts > Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
There is no need to downplay the LibreOffice (Community Edition) in order to lure the proposed enterprise edition. The sudden and unexpected additions in the development branch to the extent that 'you are using a Personal Edition which is intended for individual use' has, undoubtedly created commotion among the community. LibreOffice was and is regarded as a Freedom Software and many volunteers and including the eco-system companies (I believe) have contributed the vast-majority of the code without any commercial/enterprise edition. The office suite has achieved great heights all these years. It is purely a moral obligation on the individuals / non-individuals to give back to the community. Even if it is only to lure the governments/commercial entities to sell the proposed LibreOffice Enterprise edition, I reiterate that there is no need to downplay the standard edition. What will be 'special' and what will be the exclusive 'support', etc., in the proposed enterprise edition? Can the board clarify? - Aravind Palla ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, July 9, 2020 10:04 PM, Michael Stahl wrote: > On 09.07.20 18:19, Andreas Mantke wrote: > > > and there are three reasons, why TDF is "Gemeinnützig": > > > > - der Volks- und Berufsbildung, > > - der Wissenschaft und Forschung, insbesondere auf dem Gebiet der > > Informatik, > > > > - des bürgerschaftlichen Engagements zugunsten gemeinnütziger Zwecke. > > > > (non binding English translation: > > > > - Public and professional education > > - Science and research, particularly in the field of computer science > > - Civic engagement for non-profit purposes) > > > > There is nothing in this lines about the promotion of an ecosystem of > > service providers (etc.). > > i don't believe anybody is claiming that promotion of an ecosystem of > service providers should be a goal of TDF - what i understand is being > claimed is that it can be a good means, a tool to eventually help > reach the actual defined goals of TDF to a fuller extent, and the > proposed marketing plan is a way to increase the ... leverage(?) ... of > the means/tool. > > --- > > To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org > Problems? > https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ > Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
I second the opinion of Alex (a...@documentfoundation.org). The moment any kind of restriction is imposed or proposed to be imposed on the user (be it individual, be it an NGO, be it a community, be it an enterprise) is no more a Freedom Software. As such the proposed LibreOffice Community Edition / Personal Edition cannot be a free software and it cannot be called "libre". LibreOffice has reached this stage following the free software principles. There is no reason to commercialize the project for want of more contributions by 'demand'. I also noticed (from Slide 16) that 68% of the contributions are from eco-system companies. They contributed their code without any enterprise edition. LibreOffice had evolved to this stage and can continue to evolve without any need of enterprise edition. If at all TDF wants to focus on an enterprise edition, it is appropriate if they do it on a separate brand name, but not on LibreOffice. The draft marketing plan makes it clear that the eco-system companies' focus in future might be on the enterprise edition, leaving the 'actual' LibreOffice behind. LibreOffice has been an outstanding freedom software suite till date. The proposed marketing plan may kill the positive direction in which the office suite had been heading. I feel that the board has already decided the matter since the Development Branch already has the personal edition tag without any sound discussion before the community. - Aravind Palla ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, July 9, 2020 8:00 PM, Alexander Werner wrote: > Dear board, dear community, > > Abstract: > I request the board to: > > - provide software in accordance with the statues. > - remove parts of the software that are of no use for the intended > audience, hereby meaning the support key "feature" of LOOL. > > - undo the "Personal" edition branding. > > I am very concerned about the recent developments regarding the > strategic future of LibreOffice and The Document Foundation. As this > concern is shared by many no quick decision should be taken. > > I want to remind all of you what The Document Foundation is all about, > as stated in the unalterable statutes > (https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/statutes/): > > "The objective of the foundation is the promotion and development of > office software available for use by anyone free of charge." - this does > not restrict the target audience. > > "This software will be openly available for free use by anyone for their > own files, including companies and public authorities, ensuring full > participation in a digital society and without detriment to intellectual > property." > > I would like to remind all members of the board of directors that first > and foremost you are obliged to pursue these statutes. As a consequence > you must not restrict the target audience of LibreOffice to a specific > user group in any way. > > But this already happens for quite some time and is now getting worse: > > > 1. LibreOffice Online - Unsupported Warning > > The website for LibreOffice Online states: "The Document Foundation will > not be maintaining binaries for enterprise use". This is clearly in > violation of the statutes. > (https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-online/) > > The website also includes a picture of a warning message that often > appears > (https://www.libreoffice.org/assets/Uploads/LibreOffice-Online-limit.png), > and it is also stated: "... is designed for personal and/or development > use ..." This is not only in violation of the statues, but also very > questionable behaviour for Free/Libre and Open Source Software. > > I hereby request the board to take action to provide the software in > accordance with the statutes. > > 2. LibreOffice Online - Containing Support Keys > > Looking through the source code of LibreOffice Online, it can be easily > found, that there is a build option for support keys, this makes > absolutely no sense in our software product. > > (https://git.libreoffice.org/online/+/refs/heads/master/wsd/LOOLWSD.cpp#1259) > > I hereby request the board to take action to remove parts of the > software that are of no use for the intended audience. > > 3. LibreOffice "Personal Edition" > > As I have already mentionend in my comment to the Bug Report > (https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134486#c23), I see > any restriction or even suggested restriction of the intended audience > in violation of the statutes. > > I would also like to remind, that there are still and fresh versions > existing right now (https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan), > and that the still versions are intended for "conservative, corporate > deployments". Will the "still" "Personal Edition" then be recommended > for "corporate
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Hi Aravind, please read the answers you received before firing off new ones: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/msg04604.html https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/msg04636.html https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/msg04638.html Ciao Paolo On 09/07/2020 18:49, Aravind Palla wrote: > There is no need to downplay the LibreOffice (Community Edition) in order to > lure the proposed enterprise edition. The sudden and unexpected additions in > the development branch to the extent that 'you are using a Personal Edition > which is intended for individual use' has, undoubtedly created commotion > among the community. > > LibreOffice was and is regarded as a Freedom Software and many volunteers and > including the eco-system companies (I believe) have contributed the > vast-majority of the code without any commercial/enterprise edition. The > office suite has achieved great heights all these years. > > It is purely a moral obligation on the individuals / non-individuals to give > back to the community. > > Even if it is only to lure the governments/commercial entities to sell the > proposed LibreOffice Enterprise edition, I reiterate that there is no need to > downplay the standard edition. > > What will be 'special' and what will be the exclusive 'support', etc., in the > proposed enterprise edition? Can the board clarify? > > - Aravind Palla > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, July 9, 2020 10:04 PM, Michael Stahl > wrote: > >> On 09.07.20 18:19, Andreas Mantke wrote: >> >>> and there are three reasons, why TDF is "Gemeinnützig": >>> >>> - der Volks- und Berufsbildung, >>> - der Wissenschaft und Forschung, insbesondere auf dem Gebiet der >>> Informatik, >>> >>> - des bürgerschaftlichen Engagements zugunsten gemeinnütziger Zwecke. >>> >>> (non binding English translation: >>> >>> - Public and professional education >>> - Science and research, particularly in the field of computer science >>> - Civic engagement for non-profit purposes) >>> >>> There is nothing in this lines about the promotion of an ecosystem of >>> service providers (etc.). >> i don't believe anybody is claiming that promotion of an ecosystem of >> service providers should be a goal of TDF - what i understand is being >> claimed is that it can be a good means, a tool to eventually help >> reach the actual defined goals of TDF to a fuller extent, and the >> proposed marketing plan is a way to increase the ... leverage(?) ... of >> the means/tool. >> >> --- >> >> To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org >> Problems? >> https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >> Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >> List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ >> Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy > > -- Paolo Vecchi - Deputy Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Hi Michael, Am 09.07.20 um 18:34 schrieb Michael Stahl: > On 09.07.20 18:19, Andreas Mantke wrote: >> and there are three reasons, why TDF is "Gemeinnützig": >> >> * der Volks- und Berufsbildung, >> * der Wissenschaft und Forschung, insbesondere auf dem Gebiet der >> Informatik, >> * des bürgerschaftlichen Engagements zugunsten gemeinnütziger Zwecke. >> >> (non binding English translation: >> >> * Public and professional education >> * Science and research, particularly in the field of computer science >> * Civic engagement for non-profit purposes) >> >> There is nothing in this lines about the promotion of an ecosystem of >> service providers (etc.). > > i don't believe anybody is claiming that promotion of an ecosystem of > service providers should be a *goal* of TDF - what i understand is > being claimed is that it can be a good *means*, a tool to eventually > help reach the actual defined goals of TDF to a fuller extent, please read through the whole discussion and you may get an impression that there are some intent to use TDF for such a promotion. Regards, Andreas -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Hi Aravind, I've answered Alex's email. Se if you are satisfied with my comments. I've also answered the questions related to the slides in a reply sent to Uwe today. Executive summary: There will be no restrictions to anybody, no change of licensing, no new LibreOffice flavours and the only change we are proposing is to add a tag line like "Community Edition". There will be no LibreOffice Enterprise Edition, LibreOffice Enterprise is just a collective name that regroups the members of the ecosystem. I hope the answers provided clarify even the questions you haven't asked yet ;-) Ciao Paolo On 09/07/2020 17:17, Aravind Palla wrote: > I second the opinion of Alex (a...@documentfoundation.org). > > The moment any kind of restriction is imposed or proposed to be imposed on > the user (be it individual, be it an NGO, be it a community, be it an > enterprise) is no more a Freedom Software. As such the proposed LibreOffice > Community Edition / Personal Edition cannot be a free software and it cannot > be called "libre". > > LibreOffice has reached this stage following the free software principles. > There is no reason to commercialize the project for want of more > contributions by 'demand'. > > I also noticed (from Slide 16) that 68% of the contributions are from > eco-system companies. They contributed their code without any enterprise > edition. LibreOffice had evolved to this stage and can continue to evolve > without any need of enterprise edition. > > If at all TDF wants to focus on an enterprise edition, it is appropriate if > they do it on a separate brand name, but not on LibreOffice. The draft > marketing plan makes it clear that the eco-system companies' focus in future > might be on the enterprise edition, leaving the 'actual' LibreOffice behind. > > LibreOffice has been an outstanding freedom software suite till date. The > proposed marketing plan may kill the positive direction in which the office > suite had been heading. I feel that the board has already decided the matter > since the Development Branch already has the personal edition tag without any > sound discussion before the community. > > - Aravind Palla > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, July 9, 2020 8:00 PM, Alexander Werner > wrote: > >> Dear board, dear community, >> >> Abstract: >> I request the board to: >> >> - provide software in accordance with the statues. >> - remove parts of the software that are of no use for the intended >> audience, hereby meaning the support key "feature" of LOOL. >> >> - undo the "Personal" edition branding. >> >> I am very concerned about the recent developments regarding the >> strategic future of LibreOffice and The Document Foundation. As this >> concern is shared by many no quick decision should be taken. >> >> I want to remind all of you what The Document Foundation is all about, >> as stated in the unalterable statutes >> (https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/statutes/): >> >> "The objective of the foundation is the promotion and development of >> office software available for use by anyone free of charge." - this does >> not restrict the target audience. >> >> "This software will be openly available for free use by anyone for their >> own files, including companies and public authorities, ensuring full >> participation in a digital society and without detriment to intellectual >> property." >> >> I would like to remind all members of the board of directors that first >> and foremost you are obliged to pursue these statutes. As a consequence >> you must not restrict the target audience of LibreOffice to a specific >> user group in any way. >> >> But this already happens for quite some time and is now getting worse: >> >> >> 1. LibreOffice Online - Unsupported Warning >> >> The website for LibreOffice Online states: "The Document Foundation will >> not be maintaining binaries for enterprise use". This is clearly in >> violation of the statutes. >> (https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-online/) >> >> The website also includes a picture of a warning message that often >> appears >> >> (https://www.libreoffice.org/assets/Uploads/LibreOffice-Online-limit.png), >> and it is also stated: "... is designed for personal and/or development >> use ..." This is not only in violation of the statues, but also very >> questionable behaviour for Free/Libre and Open Source Software. >> >> I hereby request the board to take action to provide the software in >> accordance with the statutes. >> >> 2. LibreOffice Online - Containing Support Keys >> >> Looking through the source code of LibreOffice Online, it can be easily >> found, that there is a build option for support keys, this makes >> absolutely no sense in our software product. >> >>
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
On 09.07.20 18:19, Andreas Mantke wrote: and there are three reasons, why TDF is "Gemeinnützig": * der Volks- und Berufsbildung, * der Wissenschaft und Forschung, insbesondere auf dem Gebiet der Informatik, * des bürgerschaftlichen Engagements zugunsten gemeinnütziger Zwecke. (non binding English translation: * Public and professional education * Science and research, particularly in the field of computer science * Civic engagement for non-profit purposes) There is nothing in this lines about the promotion of an ecosystem of service providers (etc.). i don't believe anybody is claiming that promotion of an ecosystem of service providers should be a *goal* of TDF - what i understand is being claimed is that it can be a good *means*, a tool to eventually help reach the actual defined goals of TDF to a fuller extent, and the proposed marketing plan is a way to increase the ... leverage(?) ... of the means/tool. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Hi, Am 09.07.20 um 17:55 schrieb Bjoern Michaelsen: > Hi Alex, > > I wanted to limit myself to those four tweets on this discussion, but this > one really rattles my bones, so here we go: > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 04:30:51PM +0200, Alexander Werner wrote: >> I want to remind all of you what The Document Foundation is all about, >> as stated in the *unalterable* statutes >> (https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/statutes/): >> >> "The objective of the foundation is the promotion and development of >> office software available for use by anyone free of charge." - this does >> not restrict the target audience. >> >> "This software will be openly available for free use by anyone for their >> own files, including companies and public authorities, ensuring full >> participation in a digital society and without detriment to intellectual >> property." >> >> I would like to remind all members of the board of directors that first >> and foremost you are obliged to pursue these statutes. As a consequence >> you must not restrict the target audience of LibreOffice to a specific >> user group in any way. > While we go into full language lawyering here, The Document Foundation is a > gemeinnuetzige Stiftung first and foremost. The "Gemeinnuetzig" in results in > certain limits on what the goals of the Stiftung are and nothing in the > statues > can overrule that. > and there are three reasons, why TDF is "Gemeinnützig": * der Volks- und Berufsbildung, * der Wissenschaft und Forschung, insbesondere auf dem Gebiet der Informatik, * des bürgerschaftlichen Engagements zugunsten gemeinnütziger Zwecke. (non binding English translation: * Public and professional education * Science and research, particularly in the field of computer science * Civic engagement for non-profit purposes) There is nothing in this lines about the promotion of an ecosystem of service providers (etc.). Please be careful with the direction you are driving the foundation. Regards, Andreas -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Hi Alex, thanks for your contribution and see inline my comments. On 09/07/2020 16:30, Alexander Werner wrote: > Dear board, dear community, > > Abstract: > I request the board to: > - provide software in accordance with the statues. Absolutely, there is no intention of changing that. > - remove parts of the software that are of no use for the intended > audience, hereby meaning the support key "feature" of LOOL. Thanks for notifying us of that. I personally wasn't aware of it. > - undo the "Personal" edition branding. That was a temporary placeholder used while the developers implemented a potential tag line features that may or may not be used depending on the outcome of this consultation. "Personal" was one of the many options that came out while we were preparing this consultation. Nothing has been yet decided about it. > > I am very concerned about the recent developments regarding the > strategic future of LibreOffice and The Document Foundation. As this > concern is shared by many no quick decision should be taken. > > I want to remind all of you what The Document Foundation is all about, > as stated in the *unalterable* statutes > (https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/statutes/): > > "The objective of the foundation is the promotion and development of > office software available for use by anyone free of charge." - this does > not restrict the target audience. > > "This software will be openly available for free use by anyone for their > own files, including companies and public authorities, ensuring full > participation in a digital society and without detriment to intellectual > property." > > I would like to remind all members of the board of directors that first > and foremost you are obliged to pursue these statutes. As a consequence > you must not restrict the target audience of LibreOffice to a specific > user group in any way. The statutes and their principles are the reason why a vibrant Community has been able to form around TDF and nobody in the Board has any intention of doing anything that goes against them. There has never been any idea of limiting access or the features of LibreOffice. > > But this already happens for quite some time and is now getting worse: > > > 1. LibreOffice Online - Unsupported Warning > > The website for LibreOffice Online states: "The Document Foundation will > not be maintaining binaries for enterprise use". This is clearly in > violation of the statutes. > (https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-online/) > > The website also includes a picture of a warning message that often > appears > (https://www.libreoffice.org/assets/Uploads/LibreOffice-Online-limit.png), > and it is also stated: "... is designed for personal and/or development > use ..." This is not only in violation of the statues, but also very > questionable behaviour for Free/Libre and Open Source Software. > > **I hereby request the board to take action to provide the software in > accordance with the statutes.** > > > 2. LibreOffice Online - Containing Support Keys > > Looking through the source code of LibreOffice Online, it can be easily > found, that there is a build option for support keys, this makes > absolutely no sense in our software product. > (https://git.libreoffice.org/online/+/refs/heads/master/wsd/LOOLWSD.cpp#1259) > > **I hereby request the board to take action to remove parts of the > software that are of no use for the intended audience.** Thanks for notifying us of your concerns. I'm not up to speed with those bits of code so I'll check with my fellow members of the Board. Keep in mind that LibreOffice On-Line derives mostly from development carried out by Collabora for their On-Line product so there may be parts in the code that are left from their own development. I'm sure Michael Meeks will answer back ASAP to correct me if I said something wrong. > > 3. LibreOffice "Personal Edition" > > As I have already mentionend in my comment to the Bug Report > (https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134486#c23), I see > any restriction or even suggested restriction of the intended audience > in violation of the statutes. > > I would also like to remind, that there are still and fresh versions > existing right now (https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan), > and that the still versions are intended for "conservative, corporate > deployments". Will the "still" "Personal Edition" then be recommended > for "corporate deployments"? I don't believe that this is understood by > our audience in any way. > > Also: I don't see the reason for the "Personal Edition" tag, as this > means that TDF must also provide another edition that is then targeted > for all other use cases. There is no intention of providing another edition at all. LibreOffice is and will remain LibreOffice. The proposal, as described in the evolving marketing plan, is to potentially add a tag line which would help in clarifying to corporate users that TDF does not provide the
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Hi Alex, I wanted to limit myself to those four tweets on this discussion, but this one really rattles my bones, so here we go: On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 04:30:51PM +0200, Alexander Werner wrote: > I want to remind all of you what The Document Foundation is all about, > as stated in the *unalterable* statutes > (https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/statutes/): > > "The objective of the foundation is the promotion and development of > office software available for use by anyone free of charge." - this does > not restrict the target audience. > > "This software will be openly available for free use by anyone for their > own files, including companies and public authorities, ensuring full > participation in a digital society and without detriment to intellectual > property." > > I would like to remind all members of the board of directors that first > and foremost you are obliged to pursue these statutes. As a consequence > you must not restrict the target audience of LibreOffice to a specific > user group in any way. While we go into full language lawyering here, The Document Foundation is a gemeinnuetzige Stiftung first and foremost. The "Gemeinnuetzig" in results in certain limits on what the goals of the Stiftung are and nothing in the statues can overrule that. Being a commercial grade service or support provider to random companies or public entities using productivity software is clearly NOT within these limits, and no motte and bailey sophistication about the implied interpretation of the foundations statues will change that or can make it the Document Foundations mission. There is quite a bit of excusable naivete going round in this discussion, which is understandable given that TDF needs to finally adapt to the changes that happened in the last decade, so there are a lot of fundamentals reevaluated here. Its not even wrong, as we need to find new ways, because the ones that worked a decade ago dont work anymore or will be failing soon. The above on the other hand overconfidently states implications that dont even stand basic scrutiny and deliver them as an argumentum ab auctoritate. As such, it should be ignored at best -- however, given the international community, not everyone might be comfortable in judging the core of that German legalese argument on their own. Worse than that, it doesnt even provide a constructive proposal on which way to develop the foundation and the community -- away from a status quo that is clearly less and less working. I am very happy that the new board attacks these hard challenges and am open and eager to hear each and every constuctive proposal on how to bring the projects and the community forward. I am also happy if fellow members of the community reread the statues to find guidance and ideas to find ways to make them work in the now. So in order for this project and this community to not die it first needs constructive proposals. Those can then be refined, improved and adjusted using institutional learnings we made over the last two decades. But it needs a constuctive proposal FIRST, because without it, there is nothing to refine or improve by our learnings. /end rant Best, Bjoern -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Hi Alex, Alexander Werner wrote on 09/07/2020 16:30: > I want to remind all of you what The Document Foundation is all about, > as stated in the *unalterable* statutes > (https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/statutes/): > > "The objective of the foundation is the promotion and development of > office software available for use by anyone free of charge." - this does > not restrict the target audience. > > "This software will be openly available for free use by anyone for their > own files, including companies and public authorities, ensuring full > participation in a digital society and without detriment to intellectual > property." I do not read that the statues say that this apply to all software developed 'under TDF'. Also, there seems to be room for debate - partly at least - about whether software is code or binaries. So providing a basic "Office-Paket, also Software für gebräuchliche Arbeiten zur Erstellung z.B. von Texten, Tabellendokumenten, Präsentationen, Zeichnungen, Bildern und Diagrammen" may be just enough? Since the statues also say something about a sustainable community, I think it is wise to try to find a good mixture. > ... > The primary goal of The Document Foundation is to fulfill its statutes, > and the secondary goal is to cater for ecosystem vendors needs. The statues say nothing explicit about "ecosystem vendors needs". As already stated: the statues mention to take care for a sustainable community (etc) too. So strongly dividing between TDF and ecosystem vendors feels unnatural to me. I know, agree, that it is not easy. But the draft marketing plan tries to explain why doing the one (giving away free to use) without doing the other (taking care for the ecosystem) will not last. I believe that some details in the marketing plan, may even be less positive, then you read them there. Please understand that this all is not to say that I do not take the statues seriously - I'm active long enough in the community to know the importance, history etc. But - as business man and board member - I like to make use of the freedom, room, that is there, if it serves our goals :) Greetings, Cor -- Cor Nouws GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28 A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6 - vrijwilliger https://nl.libreoffice.org - volunteer https://www.libreoffice.org - Member Board The Document Foundation - marketing @CollaboraOffice - ceo www.nouenoff.nl - initiator www.mijncloudoffice.nl -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Dear board, dear community, Abstract: I request the board to: - provide software in accordance with the statues. - remove parts of the software that are of no use for the intended audience, hereby meaning the support key "feature" of LOOL. - undo the "Personal" edition branding. I am very concerned about the recent developments regarding the strategic future of LibreOffice and The Document Foundation. As this concern is shared by many no quick decision should be taken. I want to remind all of you what The Document Foundation is all about, as stated in the *unalterable* statutes (https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/statutes/): "The objective of the foundation is the promotion and development of office software available for use by anyone free of charge." - this does not restrict the target audience. "This software will be openly available for free use by anyone for their own files, including companies and public authorities, ensuring full participation in a digital society and without detriment to intellectual property." I would like to remind all members of the board of directors that first and foremost you are obliged to pursue these statutes. As a consequence you must not restrict the target audience of LibreOffice to a specific user group in any way. But this already happens for quite some time and is now getting worse: 1. LibreOffice Online - Unsupported Warning The website for LibreOffice Online states: "The Document Foundation will not be maintaining binaries for enterprise use". This is clearly in violation of the statutes. (https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-online/) The website also includes a picture of a warning message that often appears (https://www.libreoffice.org/assets/Uploads/LibreOffice-Online-limit.png), and it is also stated: "... is designed for personal and/or development use ..." This is not only in violation of the statues, but also very questionable behaviour for Free/Libre and Open Source Software. **I hereby request the board to take action to provide the software in accordance with the statutes.** 2. LibreOffice Online - Containing Support Keys Looking through the source code of LibreOffice Online, it can be easily found, that there is a build option for support keys, this makes absolutely no sense in our software product. (https://git.libreoffice.org/online/+/refs/heads/master/wsd/LOOLWSD.cpp#1259) **I hereby request the board to take action to remove parts of the software that are of no use for the intended audience.** 3. LibreOffice "Personal Edition" As I have already mentionend in my comment to the Bug Report (https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134486#c23), I see any restriction or even suggested restriction of the intended audience in violation of the statutes. I would also like to remind, that there are still and fresh versions existing right now (https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan), and that the still versions are intended for "conservative, corporate deployments". Will the "still" "Personal Edition" then be recommended for "corporate deployments"? I don't believe that this is understood by our audience in any way. Also: I don't see the reason for the "Personal Edition" tag, as this means that TDF must also provide another edition that is then targeted for all other use cases. **I hereby request the board to take action that this change be undone to gain time for the community to find a consensus.** My personal opinion is to keep the Brand LibreOffice as a name, and certified vendors are able to provide support and services as "LibreOffice Enterprise" partners. If you change the product, the name is to be changed. As this topic already gained significant public interest, it is now the time for the board to re-evaluate the Marketing Plan and its hopefully unintended side-effects. The primary goal of The Document Foundation is to fulfill its statutes, and the secondary goal is to cater for ecosystem vendors needs. Alex -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Hi Andreas, kainz.a wrote: > I think the biggest change has to be done on the LibreOffice.org website > which will cost some time. The change in LibreOffice will be minor. There > has to be only an decision about a flavour tag (or not). > Yep, plus the exact wording for the about box (c.f. BZ issue tdf#134486). I see consensus forming around 'Community Edition', and would strongly favour going ahead with that. Cheers, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Hi, as also the news feeds add the topic I would suggest to bring as fast as possible the new marketing strategy. No comment for 6 months will be a nogo. In addition there are 8 days to find a solution which means enough time. I also would prefer to have some draft's before the decision about a new marketing strategy was done. LibreOffice is a community, so don't come up with an final marketing plan where the community can't give feedback. If needed there could be an additional public board call before Friday, July 17. I think the biggest change has to be done on the LibreOffice.org website which will cost some time. The change in LibreOffice will be minor. There has to be only an decision about a flavour tag (or not). So keep on rolling Andreas_k Am Do., 9. Juli 2020 um 12:03 Uhr schrieb Lothar K. Becker < lot...@documentfoundation.org>: > Dear community, > > thanks for the feedback on the marketing plan draft via different channels > so far. We want to let you know and have you take part, as the board is > discussing the options now available with that draft. > > In the meantime, some more feedback will be integrated in the document > already and will be published on next Monday. This is still not the last > chance for a change for version 7.0.0, but we will reach that point soon. > > The last change for all strings and tags would be possible the latest by > Monday, July 20. With some preliminary phase for decision making of the > board the public feedback phase on all this will end by the time of the > next public board call, i.e. Friday, July 17, 1300 Berlin time. > > What are the realistic options so far: > > * Variant 1: Implementation of a marketing plan would be postponed to > V7.1, as no UI changes can be made in minor releases. This would imply a > longer discussion period. > > OR > > * Variant 2: Implementation of the marketing plan draft with V7.0.0 with > flavour tags. > > At the moment it looks like, that this then would be called "Community > Edition" (in change to the RC1) and with the introduction of the umbrella > brand "Enterprise Edition" with explanations and pointer to ecosystem > partner offerings. > > The feedback here we still need until the mentioned Friday, July 17, 1300 > Berlin time is about all strings and tags (e.g. "Community Edition"), you > can give that also in the BZ > https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134486 > > OR > > * Variant 3: As variant 2 above and further tweak all strings and tags for > V7.1, after gaining experience and more feedback with it from V7.0. > > > We encourage all the community to bring in your opinions further, also on > the public board call (Friday, July 17, 1300 Berlin time), and all the > other channels. Please be aware, that any sort of decision of the board > must be made the latest at the dates stated above. > > > Thanks so much for your input so far! All the best, and still keep healthy! > > Lothar > chairman of the board > > -- > Lothar K. Becker, Member of the Board of Directors > The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE > Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts > Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint > > mail: lot...@documentfoundation.org > phone: +49 7202 9499 001 (c/o .riess applications gmbh) > >
[board-discuss] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable
Dear community, thanks for the feedback on the marketing plan draft via different channels so far. We want to let you know and have you take part, as the board is discussing the options now available with that draft. In the meantime, some more feedback will be integrated in the document already and will be published on next Monday. This is still not the last chance for a change for version 7.0.0, but we will reach that point soon. The last change for all strings and tags would be possible the latest by Monday, July 20. With some preliminary phase for decision making of the board the public feedback phase on all this will end by the time of the next public board call, i.e. Friday, July 17, 1300 Berlin time. What are the realistic options so far: * Variant 1: Implementation of a marketing plan would be postponed to V7.1, as no UI changes can be made in minor releases. This would imply a longer discussion period. OR * Variant 2: Implementation of the marketing plan draft with V7.0.0 with flavour tags. At the moment it looks like, that this then would be called "Community Edition" (in change to the RC1) and with the introduction of the umbrella brand "Enterprise Edition" with explanations and pointer to ecosystem partner offerings. The feedback here we still need until the mentioned Friday, July 17, 1300 Berlin time is about all strings and tags (e.g. "Community Edition"), you can give that also in the BZ https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134486 OR * Variant 3: As variant 2 above and further tweak all strings and tags for V7.1, after gaining experience and more feedback with it from V7.0. We encourage all the community to bring in your opinions further, also on the public board call (Friday, July 17, 1300 Berlin time), and all the other channels. Please be aware, that any sort of decision of the board must be made the latest at the dates stated above. Thanks so much for your input so far! All the best, and still keep healthy! Lothar chairman of the board -- Lothar K. Becker, Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint mail: lot...@documentfoundation.org phone: +49 7202 9499 001 (c/o .riess applications gmbh)
